Town Square

Opening Brief Finally Filed in Oak Grove Referendum Appeal

I knew about this since Tuesday and was wondering if PW was going to report anything on it, or rely upon this blog for the news... It is reported in The Independent today so I'll write about it now instead of waiting to see if PW prints something in tomorrow's edition.

According to the court website, the respondent's brief is due on Oct. 9. It lists the defendant/respondent as being the City Clerk of Pleasanton, which is confusing to me. Wouldn't it be the Lins?

This story contains 101 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
logged in.
Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account,
click here
to get your online account activated.

Comments

Like this comment

Posted by Jerry
a resident of Oak Hill
on Sep 12, 2008 at 6:02 pm

Well, well. Now where are all the naysayers that implied the request for extension of the appeal could be a stalling tactic by the "Ayala Faction"?? What say you now???

But wait!! Now I could be wrong, but didn't at least one "wanna-be lawyer" predict it wouldn't even get this far along.

Who knows, maybe deep pockets can't keep the "little people" down after all. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what happens next but I'd bet if the "Ayala Faction" comes out on top in the appeal process, this is a long way from over. Deep pockets has a lot to lose....

Posted by Stacey
a resident of Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Sep 12, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Yea! At last they filed after two 1-month extensions. I wish I could have done that with my schoolwork! I also wish there were a free electronic copy of the opening brief available on the appellate court website like the superior court has. It better be pretty good to have kept us all waiting so long. :) I wonder if the other side of the equation will delay at all.

Why does it seem like no one calling up the State legislature on this if this is such a huge issue? That is where the problem of confusion about the "full text" requirement can be fixed.